This opinion is subject to
further editing.If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official
Reports.

A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals.SeeWis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.

Appeal No.

2006AP2983

Cir. Ct. No.1989PA86017

STATE OF WISCONSIN

IN COURT OF
APPEALS

DISTRICT I

In re the Paternity of A.L. D.

Tina Pearson,

Petitioner-Respondent,

v.

John L. Dye,

Respondent-Appellant.

APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:karen
e. christenson, Judge.Affirmed.

Before Curley, P.J., Fine and Kessler, JJ.

¶1PER CURIAM. John L. Dye, Jr., appeals from
the order that denied his motion to reopen a determination of paternity.We conclude that the circuit court properly
denied the motion, and affirm.

¶2In 1990, a paternity judgment was entered against Dye when he
did not appear for the hearing.In 2006,
he brought a motion to have genetic testing done to determine if he was the
child’s father.The circuit court denied
the motion finding that Dye had not served the mother and that the motion to
reopen was not timely, given the age of the child.He argues that he did serve the mother and
that it would be better to have his paternity determined biologically rather
than based on a default.

¶3Tina Pearson, the mother of the child, is named as the
respondent to this appeal. She did not
file a brief.The failure to file a
responsive brief may be the basis to summarily reverse the order of the circuit
court.SeeWis. Stat. Rule 809.83(2) (2005-06).[1]Pearson was notified by an order dated April
10, 2007, that the appeal could be summarily reversed if she failed to file a
brief.Nevertheless, we opt not to
summarily reverse.

¶4Dye is seeking to reopen a judgment of paternity that was
entered seventeen years ago.A motion to
reopen a judgment must be made within a reasonable amount of time.SeeWis.
Stat. § 806.07(2).A motion
to vacate a default judgment is addressed to the circuit court’s
discretion.Baird Contracting,
Inc. v. Mid Wisconsin Bank of Medford, 189 Wis. 2d 321, 324, 525 N.W.2d
276 Ct. App. 1994).“A defendant may
obtain relief from a default judgment by showing excusable neglect and a
meritorious defense to the action.”Id.Neglect is excusable if it “might have been
the act of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.”Id. Dye asserted in his motion for DNA testing
that he defaulted in 1990 because he was incarcerated.Dye has not explained, however, why he waited
so long to seek to reopen the default judgment.Further, the child is now over the age of eighteen so Dye is no longer liable
for future child support although we have no information as to what obligation
may have accrued for her benefit to date. Because Dye has not provided sufficient
information to the court, and because the matter is mooted by the age of the
child, we affirm the order of the circuit court.

By
the Court.—Order affirmed.

This
opinion will not be published.See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.

[1] All
references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2005-06 version unless
otherwise noted.